• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should people be forced to give of their bodily resources if it saves lives?

Should people be forced to give of their bodily resources if it saves lives?

  • Yes, saving a life overrides a person's right to their own body.

    Votes: 1 3.1%

  • No, people's right to control their own body is not affected by the need of others.

    Votes: 31 96.9%
  • Total voters
    32
Hornburger said:
hmm, I'm actually thinking about changing my vote to yes when the bodily resource is blood...I mean...why not? To save a little inconvenience? If there is virtually a zero percent risk...Why not?
Click to expand...
Because it is your body and others don't have the right to enslave you and take your bodily resources against your will? that sure seems like a good reason. Otherwise, what risk and discomfort makes it valid and what doesn't? you would have to come up with a scale where some people are forced to donate some resources and others not.
 
Well, it's not enslaving me lol, it's just taking my blood which I don't need anyway. There is no risk and little discomfort, and you are saving someone's life...

And as for who would have to give blood...it would be the people who are fit to give blood...they have this whole process and everything where some people can give blood and others can't. Also, we'd have to see which type of blood is in low supply. So...I think I change my opinion lol.

I wasn't so quick at first to have this opinion because it isn't really brought up too often, but after I have thought about I don't see a valid reason why we shouldn't!
 
Hornburger said:
Well, it's not enslaving me lol, it's just taking my blood which I don't need anyway. There is no risk and little discomfort, and you are saving someone's life...
Click to expand...
And when I take your extra kidney that you don't need anyway, doing so in a process that is afer than giving birth, should you be forced to do that as well, even if you don't want to?
So you are saying that the decision as to whether somebody should be forced to give their bodily resources or not is a medical decision?
 
steen said:
And when I take your extra kidney that you don't need anyway, doing so in a process that is afer than giving birth, should you be forced to do that as well, even if you don't want to?
Click to expand...
I said blood.
So you are saying that the decision as to whether somebody should be forced to give their bodily resources or not is a medical decision?
Click to expand...
What...of course giving blood is a medical decision.
 
Hornburger said:
I said blood.
Click to expand...
And how is that different than giving a kidney?
What...of course giving blood is a medical decision.
Click to expand...
Just like an abortion is. So get rid of the politics. I am glad we agree.
 
steen said:
And how is that different than giving a kidney?
Click to expand...
Well, the person might need the kidney later, but the person isn't going to miss the blood...and there are other steps with kidneys there are other things we can do to get more...like making it legal to sell organs and putting everyone on the donor list, then letting people take themselves off if they so choose.
Just like an abortion is. So get rid of the politics. I am glad we agree.
Click to expand...
But the government can be involved in the medical industry...but okay lol
 
Hornburger said:
Well, the person might need the kidney later, but the person isn't going to miss the blood...
Click to expand...
And the pregnant woman might have problems from the pregnancy as well.

That aside, are you willing to let a man die on an unlikely "maybe"? If you later need a kidney, you can get one donated. After all, if such donation is mandatory, you will be sure that you get one, so there is no problem.
and there are other steps with kidneys
Click to expand...
Ah, the major medical procedure? you have no problem forcing women to go through with 9 months of dangerous and health changing experiences, so why not force people to give the extra kidney they don't need in a procedure that lasts much less than 9 months, in fact less than one day?
there are other things we can do to get more...like making it legal to sell organs and putting everyone on the donor list, then letting people take themselves off if they so choose.
Click to expand...
And you can set up a list of people who want to donate their newborn babies also. So that should be a great reason to not make such unwanted pregnancies mandatory.
 
And if the mother's health is in danger, an abortion should be allowed.

Because the person giving the kidney could have problems later. If the mother's life is in danger during the pregnancy, an abortion would be allowed.

And you can set up a list of people who want to donate their newborn babies also. So that should be a great reason to not make such unwanted pregnancies mandatory.
Click to expand...
All I hear is "I don't have an argument so I'm just going to be a smartass."
 
Hornburger said:
And if the mother's health is in danger, an abortion should be allowed.
Click to expand...
Well, that is the "if it will kill them, they don't have to donate." But that would kill the embryo. When applying this to the kidney patient that would also result in the kidney patient’s death, the not donating bodily resources.
Because the person giving the kidney could have problems later.
Click to expand...
or could not. Again, you are speculating that problems may happen later, when IN FACT, the complication rate is much less than that of giving birth.
If the mother's life is in danger during the pregnancy, an abortion would be allowed.
Click to expand...
Ah, but not if she "could have problems later"? Why the double standard?
All I hear is "I don't have an argument so I'm just going to be a smartass."
Click to expand...
Not my fault you can't listen :lol:
 
An idiotic poll by an idiotic pollster.
 

That's because there's no contradiction.

The woman by permitting her dumb self to get knocked up, created an obligation from herself to a person to provide an environment for that person until such time as that person no longer needs it.

The guy with the kidney made no such implicit promise to anyone who may need one.

Hence the contradiction a whole bunch of people insist on seeing isn't there.

End of story.

Yes, you people harping on concepts of punishment are either incapable of seeing the real picture or don't want it shown.
 
steen said:
Well, that is the "if it will kill them, they don't have to donate." But that would kill the embryo. When applying this to the kidney patient that would also result in the kidney patient’s death, the not donating bodily resources.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the mother never knew she was going to die when she got pregnant. She should be allowed to live.
or could not. Again, you are speculating that problems may happen later, when IN FACT, the complication rate is much less than that of giving birth.
Click to expand...
There would be risk to the yes, once again, inncent donor. Why should an innocent person be forced to pay and risk their lives?

Why is it SO difficult for people to JUST USE PROTECTION? It's their fault they never used protection. They need to accept responsibility and the consequences for their own actions.

Ah, but not if she "could have problems later"? Why the double standard?
Click to expand...
Negligence vs. Murder. People don't have to put themselves in harm's way to save another if the person is not at fault.

If the person is at fault, own up to your actions.
 
Last edited:

I can't not misrepresent your posts. You say that Scott isn't in jail for the murder of two people because California says differently, and then when I say you don't think Connor was a person you demand I don't misrepresent what you say. Since I represented you opinion accurately, your stand on boths sides of the fence in the above four lines proves that, any representation anyone makes of your position on this issue is semi-accurate since you're staking out all possible positions.

How about if you find a position first, then try formulating arguments? You'll find life much easier and relaxed when you're not playing both sides of the net simultaneously.
 
steen said:
Your argument is that "taking responsibility" doesn't mean seeking medical care to rectify the unwanted position. hence, you must also mean that you will deny the smoker any treatment for lung cancer.
Click to expand...

Don't know what on earth you're talking about. Any fool stupid enough to smoke has every freedom to seek medical care to treat his lungs. I won't deny the idiot the pleasure of chemotherapy and whatever. It's his lungs, it's his business.

steen said:
Why? pleas eprovide evidence for that claim. You seem woefully ignorant of what "murder" is.
Click to expand...

This was in response to "When tumors are defined as human, then killing them will become murder. "

Becuase you were equating the treatment of smoking related illness, for example, cancer, with killing a living human being. I know the difference and understand the treatment of a malignant disease is not the same as aborting a living human fetus.

Try getting on the same page as the rest of us. Non sequiturs only work when the victim doesn't notice.

steen said:
Ah, yes. Now we recognize the typical prolifer as a hate mongering, misogynistic, judgmental fundie.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. You feel the need to label because it's inconceivable that anyone would dare present a totally rational argument against your position.

Funny. That will only make your argument weaker because you'll be posting against your perceptions instead of posting against my words. Have fun.

steen said:
Like the smoker created a unique, growing life, yes your resistance to people seeking medical treatment to rectify such unwanted outcomes is rapidly becoming legendary.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that a cancerous tumor is a unique growing life? Will you promise to tell us when you find evidence that such a thing turns into a self-conscious individual aware of it's environment?

As already noted, I've not resistance to anyone seeking medical assistance for medical problems. A pregnancy is not on the same order as a tumor, though. Why is it some people can't see the obvious differences?

steen said:
And what "people" are they? You are not making false claims and ad hominem accusations here, are you?
Click to expand...

PETA, for example. And no, I'm not naming names of my contacts in Hollyweird, that's clearly none of your business.

steen said:
No, that still isn't true. Can you please make your arguments without having to resort to false and deceptive "definitions," please?
Click to expand...

Certainly. The traditional path for debate is to establish definitions and agree upon them for use in future discussion.

I you think the definition of murder does not include the wilful termination of the life of another individual for mere personal convenience, what do you think it means?

Here's your chance to pull things your way. You've not done well on a rational or factual level so far, how about if I take my queen off the board for a bit and give you a chance to rearrange the pieces your way?


steen said:
there still is no baby until birth, your revisionist linguistic
hyperbole and emotive, deceptive language none withstanding.
Click to expand...

Okay.

It's about options. She had one to avoid pregancy, the fetus has none at all.

Boy, it was really tough re-phrasing that idea to fit inside your politically correct verbal filter. Now that we've passed inside, how about if you address the issue raised?

steen said:
So you agree that there is no "right to life," and that prolifers who claim this are lying? Well, thank you for that admission. I shall be sure to direct your attention to those who make that claim, so you can correct their false claim, OK?
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a "right" whatsoever. They're not "lying", they're as deluded as any fool that confuses "rights" with reality.

Is it safe to assume from your post that you don't understand the concept of "rights", either?

steen said:
Actually, they are not. They have the legal option of abortion.
Click to expand...

Actually, they are. I know what the word "responsible" means, you're trying to grow a slime coat and become a lawyer. Just because ill-conceived judicial rulings enable women to eliminate ill-conceived fetuses doesn't mean she wasn't responsible for getting herself in that position in the first place.

You are aware of how fetuses are created, aren't you?

"and the fetus is the poster child for pure innocence."

steen said:
Not in the case of unwanted pregnancy, when it uses her body against her will. Then it is like a squatter, a parasite, and thus is not innocent.
Click to expand...

A "squatter", eh? Your analogy is totally at odds with the reality. The female invited the fetus in and gave it a warm place to stay, and the fetus fully expected the promised stay to be rewarding for both of them.

steen said:
Nope. It is not the environment before birth, but rather the age of termination of the pregnancy support that defines viability.
Click to expand...

Viability is a liquid definition that is moved closer and closer to conception every day. As such, it clearly lacks a rational and philosophical basis. In simple words, using viability as a definition of human confines the definition of humanity to our technology.

Since I'm an engineer and not a lawyer, I reject that completely.

steen said:
Why are you thinking that artificial goat uterus research has any bearing on the inherent error in your original claim?
Click to expand...

Since I don't make errors, my introduction of artificial goat wombs was clearly deliberate and meaningful.

Your failure to comprehend it's significance highlights flaws and weaknesses in your perception and knowledge.

Ponder this. If the Japanese are successful in growing goats in real "test tubes", will it be long before someone starts growing people in them?

And if people can be grown in machines, there baby-killers viability based arguments will have been shown to be totally flawed, since there will no longer exist any point before which the baby was not human, until the conception of the egg.

Hence, fake goat wombs will definitively prove, even for people like you, that life begins at conception.

Thank you for demonstrating your lack of perception on issues you argue about. That will be a useful tool in the future.
 
Hornburger said:
hmm, I'm actually thinking about changing my vote to yes when the bodily resource is blood...I mean...why not? To save a little inconvenience? If there is virtually a zero percent risk...Why not?
Click to expand...

Because it's my blood, not yours. I stopped donating my precious O-neg blood becuase the damn vampires wouldn't leave me alone. If you're not a "universal donor", you wouldn't understand.

But there would ALWAYS be someone needing my blood. ALWAYS.
 
"I don't see why we must ban physician assisted suicide...why should the patient be forced to endure such agony when he knows he has little chance of recovery?"


Do you think this option should only be for those terminal? Or is this a right that everyone even if they are depressed should be allowed to do? should any one at any age be allowed? And how about those who are minors? Minors dont have to tell parents about abortions now..........think they should have to tell parents if they want to kill themselves?

There are abortion clinics.........think there should be doctor-assisted euthanasia clinics?
Same day service...walk in and just end it.............Steen youd be for that one............another avenue for slaughtering people.
 
yeah...I guess so...the people with a certain blood type would get hounded...and the blood eventually gets contaminated and you'd need more anyway...I dunno, I see your point.

No, only physician-assisted suicide should be allowed if the patients are terminally ill. Otherwise, the people don't need the physician's help, they can just do it themselves.
 
hornburger you said, "No, only physician-assisted suicide should be allowed if the patients are terminally ill. Otherwise, the people don't need the physician's help, they can just do it themselves."
My mother was terminally ill and she could have easily taken her own life. I think most who are this ill could do it themselves.

I am afraid that doctor assisted suicide could end up like Aktion T4, and we all know what happened there.
 
But what if the person has little to no chance of recovery? What's the point of keeping them alive?
 
hornburger said," But what if the person has little to no chance of recovery? What's the point of keeping them alive?"

What if he was cured or went on to live a few years. I have seen this happen.

Most people want to end their lives because they are depressed at the time.
We have to find ways to make suffering people endure their circumstance and make their pain managable.......not kill them.

This could easily get out of hand..............read about Oregon and their failed system.
 
I think it depends on what their chances for recovery are, and their age. If the person isn't even going to get better, there's not much of a point to their life.

But if the person has a good chance at recovery, I would readily agree with you.

I'm talking about physician-assisted suicide here...if people want to kill themselves by themselves, fine.
 

There is a contradiction, if you are pro-life. Unless you are only pro-life regarding abortion. You can consider the kidney patient's life less important than the fetus's, but it is contradictory to do so. Life is life, why discriminate?

Let's say the woman used birth control, had no intention of getting pregnant, instead actively attempted to avoid it. She was not making an implicit promise to anybody (not that she was doing so anyway). By the way, are you Muslim? Just curious, because you call a woman dumb for getting pregnant, and you have the akhbar in your screen name. I have a good friend from Cairo originally, and even though he has been in this country for 25 years, and is very Americanized, still sometimes reverts to his former self who didn't consider women equal to men.

I didn't say anything about punishment, you did.
 
tryreading said:
There is a contradiction, if you are pro-life. Unless you are only pro-life regarding abortion. You can consider the kidney patient's life less important than the fetus's, but it is contradictory to do so. Life is life, why discriminate?
Click to expand...

I'm not "pro-life". I'm anti-murder. When infants in the womb prove themselves capable of motive and means to commit crimes, then those small people should be hauled before a court and charged with their crimes, subjected to a trial, and sentenced duly. They also deserve then the right to appeal granted all other persons.


"Akbhar", I've been told, means "is great", like in "Allah Akhbar". Certainly I'm greater than any pretend stoneage god used as an excuse to murder thousands, thus "Scarecrow Akhbar".

Right, the broad got knocked up. Is that the fetus's fault? It its not the fault of the fetus, why is the fetus being required to pay the penalty?

No one has the right to kill for convenience, not Muslim fanatic suicide hijackers, not women too ignorant to figure out the birth control options.

tryreading said:
I didn't say anything about punishment, you did.
Click to expand...

That might be a bit of splatter from Steen or someone else that thinks not permitting the slaughter of the innocent as punishment of someone else.
 

?

This doesn't answer the question. Shouldn't a kidney patient's life be just as important as a fetus's life? If not, why not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…